Re: Netatalk and OpenSSL licencing
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:33:14PM +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> You indeed can not do that. But I hope you can do the reverse: take
> propriatory code, push it into a loadable module, making your GPL code use
> it, and make them into two seperate downloads.
This is the same thing; they link against each other. The GPL doesn't care
which portions of code are in a library, a module, or an executable, or
which code initiates dynamic linkage.
I prefer that; it only leads to confusion, complication and unaccounted-for
cases when licenses start talking about specific technologies.
In practice, there are some implicit boundaries that are generally agreed
on in practice; for example, the kernel tends to act as a magic licensing
firewall, such that GPL code isn't "linked" against the kernel or to other,
unrelated processes. (I can't offer a legal grounding for this, though.)
> As a side-note. What I want is already common practice. In particular this
> is what happens in kernel development. The GNU/Linux kernel is GPL-licenced,
> while a lot of hardware drivers (the loadable modules) have non-GPL
> compatible licences.
Because Linus offered an "interpretation" to allow it. (I personally don't
believe he has the right to do that, but it's not a battle I have the time
or inclination to wage beyond casual discussion.)
> But I will probably use LGPL (or the MIT licence you mentioned) for my
> projects in the future.
The LGPL also has problems: it effectively prohibits use of code on
proprietary architectures, such as (AFAIK) SymbianOS and most gaming
consoles (eg. Xbox). I think the FSF wouldn't consider that a problem,
but it leads to the same reimplementation waste that the GPL does.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: